The Spineless Nancy Pelosi

"Araignee du soir... espoir" (the latter part of a French proverb: "A spider in the morning, anguish; a spider in the evening, hope") by Salvador Dali 1940

 

O.K. so it's my Birthday today, and I do not want to be reading comments about my xenophobia, racism or Islamophobia, my blind love for Israel, and my supposed hatred for democracy or my reactionary thoughts that embrace personal nuclear ambitions. That includes calling me a bellicose Christian with a visually compelling site - there was a compliment in there somewhere I felt sure...

I am however feeling particularly Bolshy, about the sheer chutzpah of the constant barrage of balderdash coming from the left, ranging from hating the President more than they fear al-Qaeda, to refusing to admit that there is an Islamofascist/Christian war going on in Darfur, to being soft on the über-Fascist Ahmadinejad, who is getting ready to annihilate Israel, whilst we propose to sit on our hands AGAIN, watch, and talk some more. Why, because we have a war to fight in Iraq, which the lefties did not wish to engage in, had they known what a great guy Saddam Hussein really was, and that of course we cannot afford emotionally and financially any more aggression especially as after all it is Israel and not the US which will receive the first hit. Sound familiar?

Now hot on the agenda is the immigration issue, which along with the rest of the sizzling topics such as white supremacy (Steele dares to say "enough of the white guilt already" and is of course torn apart by the usual suspects) is again down to the left to lay the accusations that we are wishing to form a fascist state, that we have "killed people to take this country for ourselves" simply because we want to control our borders, defend our national security and make illegal aliens exactly what they should be, ahem, illegal. So now enforcing the US laws makes us rightie fascists, and the left calmly do their usual switch hitting, according to what would hurt the Administration most, and not what is best for the country:

Another little noted fact is that House Democrats are responsible for keeping “felony illegal” provisions in the House Immigration Bill, HR 4437. In a slick maneuver December 16, House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, was one of 191 Democrats who joined only 65 Republicans providing the majority voting to block an amendment to the HR 4437 immigration bill which would have removed provisions making a federal felony of illegal entry or presence in the U.S. HR 4437 sponsor James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, himself had offered an amendment removing it. Only eight Democrats joined 156 Republicans voting to remove the felony provision. HR 4437 also reduces the number of legal immigrant visas by 50,000 per year whereas Senate bills under consideration sharply expand legal immigration. [...]

Speaking on the House floor immediately after her December 16 felony vote, Pelosi turned around and called the bill, “punitive, mean-spirited legislation.” Without a hint of shame, she complained about the provision she had just voted to keep in: “For the first time in our history, this bill before us would make it a federal crime, instead of a civil offense, to be in the United States in violation of an immigration law or regulation. This provision would turn millions of immigrants currently here into criminals, hindering their ability to acquire any legal status – and would effectively frustrate the proposals that would provide real immigration reform.”

HR 4437 felony provisions are a key focus of recent demonstrations by illegal aliens and their supporters in many U.S. cities. Ironically many of the demonstration leaders are also liberal Democrats. This move parallels the position taken by the Sierra Club anti-immigration faction. One hand washes the other. [...]

Democrats have only two post-Jim-Crow models for capturing the presidency: Watergate and Ross Perot. Efforts to rerun the Watergate scenario against President Bush have yet to produce anything except embarrassment for the Democrats as they are caught exposing classified elements of the U.S. efforts against al-Qaeda. On the other hand, Democratic efforts to stampede isolationist voters made sudden headway with the Dubai Ports deal controversy – even as Bill Clinton embarrassed Hillary by lobbying on behalf of Dubai as she opposed it.

Most conservative protectionists will not vote for a Democrat Party they correctly see as appeasing Islamic terrorists. These are voters who see Republicans as not doing enough to fight terrorism because U.S. borders are still crossed by thousands of illegals daily. They may vote for a third-party candidate similar to Ross Perot in sufficient numbers to deliver the Presidency to the Democrats. They have already proven this twice.

In this context, Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats ride into the fray by keeping the felony provisions in HR 4437. This forces Republicans into opposing the protectionist Right – a group happy to demand illegals be made felons. Meanwhile, Democrats need not take responsibility for the fact that 11 million federal felony prosecutions – each carrying a mandatory federal prison term – are neither a realistic nor humane way to solve the illegal alien problem. They need only direct their unions – such as AFSCME – to lead the giant illegal alien demonstrations, thus further gathering the protectionists’ ire at any who are seen as soft on illegals: Both ends working against the middle.

When the Senate reconvenes, the challenge will be to craft a bill which will solve this longest-running bone of contention protectionists have with the GOP – illegal immigration – and forestall a three-way-race that could deliver the presidency to Hillary Clinton in 2008 just as it did for her husband in 1992 and 1996.

Is Senate majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN, up to the job? We will soon find out.

As usual they can dish it out but they cannot take it.

Rick Moran is as fed up as I am:

I’ve had it with the smug, self-righteous group of immigration “reform” advocates who are calling those of us who support the rule of law over rule of politics “racists” and even (irony of ironies) “UN-American.” It reflects a towering intellectual dishonesty about the issue when your opponents feel free to distort the true nature of the opposition to illegal immigration by setting up so many strawmen that one would think the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz  was on a self-replication binge, dotting the political landscape with enough copies of himself to populate a medium sized city.

The truth of the matter is that the Open Borders argument is political poison unless it is wrapped in the flag, buttressed by the politically correct buzzwords “tolerance” and “fairness” with a final appeal to pity by raising the specter of legal children being torn from illegal mothers by cruel, heartless, pro-enforcement monsters. This would all be bad enough. It is the attempt by this crowd to connect pro-enforcement advocates with neo-Nazis, skinheads, radical militiamen and the like that stinks of demagoguery and proves how truly mendacious the Open Borders groups can be.

And hey, reconquista is real. and how is this for a cherry on the cake: “California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn’t like it should leave.” said Mario Obledo from the California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations. Really?

Comments

[a guy in pajamas]

Ed Darrell: It's ironic -- not funny, mind you, just ironic -- that people who rail against illegal immigration on the basis that, though immigration itself is no harm, technically it's illegal, would also support U.S. actions in Iraq, since they violate treaties, agreements, international law, etc., etc.

I too find it highly ironic that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq because they believe it was illegal now welcome international law-breakers with open arms, and not only that, they encourage the exploitation of poor, isolated and helpless communities by US corporations, based on the fact that it generates higher levels of filthy lucre for those corporations than legal workers would. What a topsy-turvy world of irony we live in!

[a guy in pajamas]

slowtrain: Since tolerance is sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own, in this case racism as established by Darwinism

Actually, Darwin didn't publish anything on his theory of natural selection until 1858, and his first major work, Origin of Species wasn't in print until 1859, after the UK had already abolished slavery. Racism goes back much, much farther than that.

[Ed Darrell]

It's ironic -- not funny, mind you, just ironic -- that people who rail against illegal immigration on the basis that, though immigration itself is no harm, technically it's illegal, would also support U.S. actions in Iraq, since they violate treaties, agreements, international law, etc., etc.

There's a reason it's called "knee-jerk conservatism," I hear.

[Stefan]

Ok ST, fair enough.

I do, however, feel compelled clarify things in one last blurb and then I will call it quits on this tangent before I bore you and everyone else to death. :-) I apologize if things got too far off track but I do think the point is important. To understand my initial statement on the “poisoning” of race relations as attributing all racial problems to Jesse Jackson and his ilk is to literally misread it. I said they had been “poisoning race relations in this country for decades”. I see nothing in that pertaining to all of American history. Honest and open racial dialogue is vital to the health of this country and so a careful and dispassionate reading of history is key. The basic story line usually goes like this: “White Europeans were bad slaveholders, Africans were hapless victims, and abolitionists were good.” While I would tend agree with that as a super rough outline it is a woefully inadequate and simplistic reading of history. Slavery damaged this country from end to end and from top to bottom. It was the “serpent coiled beneath the table” at the signing of the Declaration. One must never make the fatal and, I am afraid, all too common error of reading history backwards through the lens of modern understandings of justice and morality. Understanding the American struggle with the demons of slavery cannot be done in the realm of abstraction. People must be understood as real moral actors hindered by all the fears, limitations, and social pressures of their era. Humans are messy, inconsistent, fallible, and often cowardly and by extension so are the societies they create. Thomas Jefferson expressed it well:

“I can say with conscious truth, that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this kind of heavy reproach, in any practicable way. The cession of that kind of property (for so it is misnamed) is a bagatelle, which would not cost me a second thought, if in that way a general emancipation and expatriation could be affected; and gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”

Fervent abolitionists did a great service by agitating for change yet many Americans, who agreed in principle with the abolitionist view, thought many of their tactics to be reckless and shortsighted. Public opinion reflected the fear that those who advocated, agitated for, and led slave rebellions were fueling and encouraging the very race war that was looming in citizens’ nightmares. The abolitionists refused to support Lincoln in 1860 and even the Quakers distanced themselves from strains of the abolitionist movement. That is said not to “discredit” abolitionists but rather to see things realistically in order to understand. Americans of the time were evil, just, prudent, reckless, courageous, and cowardly but as slavery was the burning issue of its time I don’t know if you could say that very many of us could “care less”. That more people didn’t cry for instant emancipation or were conflicted deeply on the topic, even if only out of fear, is not enough to condemn them all. But, rather it shows that they were very real human beings dealing with a very real, serious, and difficult moral and social dilemma. Again history should not be read “backwards”

The point is this: History is always, always more complicated than quick narratives can capture. To ignore or see as unimportant the immense suffering (as personified in the person of Abe Lincoln) that this country went through climaxing in the brutal self-mutilation of the Civil War is to do truth a great disservice. It was truly the “Dark Night of the Soul” for our country. The sinner who recognizes his evil but struggles mightily against and suffers deeply from the habits of sin. The PC version of slavery given to us by Cornell West and his minions on the Left perpetually mires African Americans in shame and resentment as eternal victims (who are always acted upon without ever being moral actors themselves) and paralyses “white” America by saddling it with never-to-be forgiven guilt. If we are ever to truly have meaningful racial dialogue we must recognize the suffering that has, rightly and justly, been suffered by our entire country as steps on the road to forgiveness and reconciliation. Incomplete history leads to incomplete understanding, which leads to bad and often destructive public policy and endless bitter feuding.

America and the entire Western world are constantly told that they are the very source of evil in the world and their role in slavery is paramount in that critique. The West is “hypocritical” and racist therefore hollow and invalid when it speaks of liberty and freedom. Our citizens are demoralized and begin to wonder if we really are worth anything or if we really have been corrupt from the start; and if there is anything to fight for. They don’t hear much of the true monumental internal struggle and eventual victory over slavery that were the growing pains of a new concept in freedom. It is never told within an international context which would show that slavery was not a Western sin but a universal human sin and that the West was the only civilization in history to turn itself away from this evil. In the case of the United States penance was done at a bloody and tragic cost to itself. This is not rationalization or revisionism, but reality.

I am sorry to have taken so much of your time. I hope you don’t feel it was completely wasted and that I am a totally lost cause!! :-) I know that, when push comes to shove, we agree completely on the horror of slavery but sometimes you debate the most with those in the same camp. As always, I mean all my comments in the most collegial manner. I desire that, to paraphrase the great CS Lewis, we can argue as friends and never quarrel as enemies.

[slowtrain]

Stefan, I think this debate has swung too far from the real issue that was raised and I sense that if it is continued, we will move further and further away from the real point of interest. It has to come to an end. I have work to do and a book to finish. And I imagine you are quite busy yourself. However, as far as my comment on Thomas Sowell, my exact statement was “Sowell's text would appear as a kind of Uncle Tom’s apologetic rationalizations, because it seems to support such Southern efforts to rationalize slavery in America that you spoke about in your comments, and which continues even today, through such efforts by people like Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman’s Time on the Cross and others,” that is not the same thing as calling him an Uncle Tom nor does that equate to some people’s characterization of Dr. Rice and General Powell as Uncle Toms. As for your comment “That is the same accusation that has been thrown at Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and other African-Americans that don’t simply repeat the sacred party line verbatim”, now that is stretchy and inventive. Besides, my position on issues that has been tabled on this blog is clear and I must also say that my only allegiance is to truth and fairness not necessary to individuals, of course my allegiance would extend to any individual who speaks or upholds the truth and does so in fairness. What started this chain of discussion was your attribution of complete ownership of race problems in America to some notable African Americans. Apparently, you see that as a fair assessment and I disagree, not necessarily on the character of some of the individuals you mentioned but on their culpability for the race problems in America.

I am always careful not to attack people personally, however I am not that careful in attacking any view or action that I believe is inconsistent, erroneous or less than truthful. Accomplished or not, people are frequently wrong, even sincerely so. History is replete with accomplished people who have been wrong, sometimes gravely too. Accomplished people should be respected for individual or cumulative accomplishment but never placed on pedestals as not to analyze and question their views when it is necessary to do so. And to the extent that the text in question, not necessarily the man himself, by omission or commission supports a view or views that I find despicable, I would challenge it. This is a democracy not an aristocracy and in a democracy it behooves all us to speak up when we think the truth has not been spoken or spoken in full or in fairness, perhaps through that an issue may be clarified.

That is why I love this country, regardless of her failures, and would do whatever is necessary to see that she long endures, because regardless of her stumbles, she has not fallen and that is because she has never been shy at confronting her failures and reinventing herself by drawing from the providential premise upon which she was founded.

As for the abolitionists, they were indeed few, compared to those who advocated for slavery and those who could careless. True, some of the Quaker’s may have owned slaves initially, but realized that the sort of slavery in America was not what they could bear to be associated with, even though their relationships with their slaves might have been the kind that Apostle Paul spoke about in Philemon 1:10. And if some of them were as you put it “quite brutal and even mad”, it was out of indignation for the insufferable atrocities all around them. Injustice does and often makes good men mad you know. Nevertheless, John Hossack, William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Elijah P. Lovejoy, George Thompson, Anthony Benezet, Benjamin Lundy, Lyman Beecher, Nathaniel Taylor, Charles G. Finney, Theodore D. Weld, Arthur Tappan, Lewis Tappan, William Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson, Thomas Fowell Buxton, Elizabeth Heyrick, Elizabeth Pease, Ann Knight, Mary Lloyd, James Ramsay, Granville Sharp, Peter Peckard, James G. Birney, John Greenleaf Whittier, Abraham Lincoln, and thousands more, not even John Brown could be characterized as “quite brutal and even mad”.

I perceive that personally you abhor slavery and racism, but sometimes, people say they are not saying something, even while appearing to do so and it is often not because they are duplicitous, but because of problems of contextual communication.

Finally, as Napoleon Bonaparte said, “history is a set of lies that men have agreed upon. There is some truth to that dubious sentiment, in so far as history or its interpretation is a definition of events in tangent to the interpreter’s motives or presumptions other than exposing the truth in its proper context. Ah…h, I would be sorry if I have started another debate here.

[Stefan]

Slowtrain,
Respectfully, let’s get a couple of things straight. I have am not now, and never will be an apologist for slavery; end of story. I also hope that you would be more careful in accusing people, especially an accomplished and respected scholar as Mr. Sowell, of being “Uncle Toms”. That is the same accusation that has been thrown at Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Colin Powell, and other African-Americans that don’t simply repeat the sacred party line verbatim. They do not (nor do I) deny or apologize for the evil of slavery or any apartheid system. The larger point that Mr. Sowell is making (which I agree with) is that if someone gets their version of slavery from “Roots” they are sadly mistaken.

Were the Quakers among the earliest to speak out against slavery? Why yes they were but even Quakers owned slaves in the New World until they were prohibited officially in 1758. What does this show? It shows that even among the Christian groups that had the most fervent abolitionist tendencies it was a progressive and complicated struggle. I wholeheartedly agree that it was Judeo-Christian morality that fueled the progressive understanding and articulation of the evils of slavery, but to suggest that Quakers and a relatively small number of fervent abolitionists (some who were quite brutal and even mad) somehow single handedly banished slavery from the Western Hemisphere is a tremendous stretch. It was the British Empire that was the most important vehicle for outlawing and policing the end of the international slave trade (banned by Parliament in 1808). Slavery was even banned in the Ottoman Empire (temporarily) under British pressure. England was the biggest player in the slave trade at one time but became the strongest opponent. The struggle was long and difficult, and included all kinds of tactics like buying and releasing slaves, incessant patrolling of the seas, banning slavery in British colonies, etc. Who was it that was so unrelenting in continuing the slave trade? Primarily Arabs and Africans.

The overarching point that I am trying to make clear is not as you suggest that “slavery was not as bad as it was portrayed” but that it is not so simplistic. As Willard B. Gatewood points out, roughly one third of free-persons of color in New Orleans were slave owners and thousands of them volunteered for the Confederacy. Confusing huh? There were numerous attempts in America at the colonial, state, and national level to outlaw, limit, and restrict slavery prior to the Revolution and up until the Civil War. The point is that it does no one any good to understand slavery without proper historical context, facts, and perspective. Slavery has been a black-eye to the human race not exclusive to white Europeans or the New World by any stretch of the imagination; nor was it opposed and defeated by a simply a handful of saintly individuals. It is a victory that can rightly and justly be claimed by Western Society which was fed and nurtured from its inception by Christianity.

[slowtrain]

I am sorry Stefan, but that is not good enough and I dare say that Sowell's text would appear as a kind of Uncle Tom’s apologetic rationalizations, because it seems to support such Southern efforts to rationalize slavery in America that you spoke about in your comments, and which continues even today, through such efforts by people like Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman’s Time on the Cross and others. For readers who may not be familiar with Fogel and Engerman’s Time on the Cross, it is a two-volume “study” in cliometrics (econometric history or scientific history), which examined the economics of American Negro slavery, and concluded that slavery in the antebellum south was not as bad as it has been portrayed.

You have to do better than that my good friend.

Also, we must be clear that what you refer to as Western Civilization and Western ideals in your last two comments are really Judeo-Christian principles. Neither Judaism nor Christianity began in Europe or the West and these principles existed in Europe even before the trans-Atlantic slavery began, albeit much later than trans-Sahara slavery, yet slavery flourished in the West, but for the few true Christians, Wilberforce and the rest of the abolitionists in England and the Quakers and other abolitionists in America, slavery would have continued in Europe and America much longer than it did. Isn’t it ironic how society eagerly claim credit for the sacrifice of a few of its brave sons and daughters who were themselves persecuted by the society when they sought to do the right thing (establish the civilization) you now speak of as uniquely a Western attribute.

As you know most Westerners, Europeans especially, are increasingly rejecting the ideals that motivated the abolitionist like Wilberforce and reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence, just as the King of England and others did not hold the view that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” otherwise it would not have been the rallying cry of the founders of the America republic and it would not have been the premise on which to part ways with the king. As you know many Europeans have abandoned the Judeo-Christian morality that inspired the values developed thereof and many Western academics of today do not believe in God and the ideal “that all men are created equal” and if it were possible they will have it removed from the document.

[Stefan]

My point was that slavery itself did not arise because of racism (the “I agree with myself” thing was a joke ;-). Europeans were enslaved by North Africans, Arabs, and other Europeans. The term “Slav” and “slave” are related, no? To argue that when “Europeans enslaved Africans” it was suddenly racist is silly. I will let Thomas Sowell explain:

“Over the centuries, as more and more territories around the world consolidated into nation states with their own armies and navies, raiding those territories to capture and enslave the people who lived there became more hazardous in itself and also risked military retaliation against the countries from which the raiders came. Thus more and more peoples became off-limits to slave-raiders over time. Put differently, the areas which remained subject to slave raiding over the centuries were primarily those where the people lived in smaller or weaker societies. Such societies continued to exist where it was difficult for geographic or other reasons, to consolidate large areas under one government. This was true of the Balkans, the backwaters of Asia, sub-Saharan Africa with its numerous and severe geographic handicaps was one of the last remaining areas from which vast numbers of people could be enslaved.
Far from being targeted by Europeans for racial reasons, as some have claimed, Africa was resorted to as a source of large supplies of slaves only after centuries of Europeans enslaving other Europeans had been brought to an end by the consolidation of nations and empires on the European continent by internal shifts from slavery to serfdom in much of Europe, and by the Catholic Church’s pressures against enslaving fellow Christians.”

The slave raiding in Africa was not done by Europeans but by Africans who sold their human products in coastal slave markets. Those Africans didn’t enslave fellow Africans because they were black, but because they could. Sowell goes on to say:

“While slavery was common to all civilizations, as well as to peoples considered uncivilized, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late it its history---Western Civilization.”

The problem of slavery in the United states in unique because people were afraid to end it out of fear of race war (as was seen in Haiti) caused by a huge an unassimilated and uneducated population suddenly catapulted to freedom without having what were considered the proper skills (due to generations lived in bondage) to become citizens, fears of shattering the Union, and Southern economic pressures. The struggle over how to balance the revulsion to and embarrassment caused by slavery in the United States was deeply painful. The prejudice and racism embraced by people were inevitable byproducts of the subjugation of a people; especially when those people were the center piece of such bitter and bloody conflict as was experienced in America. If you’ll indulge me; Sowell again:

“The story of how human beings treat each other when they have unbridled power over them is seldom a pretty story, regardless of the color of the people involved. When the roles were reversed, Africans did not treat Europeans any better that Europeans treated Africans. Neither can be exempted from moral condemnation applied to the other.”

In the last 50 years Americans in general have made super-human efforts to eradicate as many traces of personal, governmental, and other forms of intuitional racism. Every conceivable law, policy, and regulation has been passed (some great some stupid) to combat it. The amount of public pressure that is brought to bear on true racists is staggering. The black leadership that I mentioned (Jackson, Sharpton, etc.) have made a fat living off of ignoring racial progress by continually and disingenuously picking the scabs of deeply painful social wounds. This is done at great benefit to themselves and great detriment to African Americans, and all other Americans who are demeaned, insulted and slandered as being perpetually “racist” by only the fact that their skin is white. As John McWhorter sees it (paraphrase); ‘the conversation on race the United States has been reduced to black people telling white people how racist they are and white people politely listening’. If this is not “poisoning” race relations I don’t know what is. Note I also said (originally) that these “leaders” had done their damage in the last “decades”. I think this is unarguably true. That this same pattern of achieving political power through militant and perpetual victimhood can be seen in the Left-wing Latin American community is also unarguable.

[Alexandra]

Marc,

This certainly has to be one of the most beautiful comments ever made on ATB. Thank you for that.

[MarcH]

Kenny,

I didn’t want to let this post march any further down the screen to “archive-ville” without thanking you for your comment on 5/3/06 at 1:09 pm in which you added
“Devout Jews (special bonus honorary category)” as one of your classes of Christianity in our discussion of books of the Bible.

One of the beautiful things about ATB is that it serves as a club for (among others) devout* Jews and Christians to discuss the great issues of Religion, Politics, Life, etc. in a manner which is respectful and loving; recognizes our common foundation, moral concerns and interests; yet, doesn’t discount the importance of the differences in the doctrines of each faith.

I take your comment as a tribute and a kind gesture. As a traditional Jew, I would be honored to be associated with my Christian brothers.

We must all hang together …

(* as well as imperfect folk like me who try to be devout but often fail)

[slowtrain]

It may surprise you but I agree with myself on this point!! Historically, slavery does not equate with racism. For most of human history people were not enslaved because they were of a different “race” (which is a comparatively newer concept) but rather, because they were vulnerable. The deep racism that grew out of the American experience of slavery in is many regards unique.

Stefan, exactly what point do you agree with yourself on? You said yourself; that the American experience of slavery is different in the sense that it was racist. That is the point I made in my response to your comment with regards to the African Americans you seem to completely attribute America’s race problems to; it was not about the history of slavery in itself, which is irrelevant to the point. You can’t have your argument both ways, you cannot on the one hand admit that the American experience of slavery was the only slavery in history that is different in concept and uniquely so, because it was predicated and sustained on racism, yet deny that the experience did not shape race relations or create racism in America. You recognize history yet disregard a large portion of it when you draw conclusions. I see that as a disingenuous argument.

History has never been static, just as time is not static, otherwise it wouldn’t be history, just as time wouldn’t be time if it remained constant, would it? Yes vulnerability is the common factor, but the vulnerability factor in itself is variable. True, at some point in history, say when Europeans enslaved other Europeans and Africans enslaved other Africans, slavery did not equate to racism, but it did when Europeans enslaved Africans and with that came the end of Europeans enslaving other Europeans, including indentured people. At that point in history as you noted, the dynamics of slavery changed and race became that vulnerability you spoke about. You speak about truth, how could you not recognize the whole truth about racism in America or has your truth now also become relative?

[Stefan]

Yes Gringoman, Shelby Steele is a very interesting fellow. You are speaking of his new book "White Guilt" which I look forward to reading. Thomas Sowell also has a book I recommend called "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" which is a book of individual essays which tie together on the larger theme.

[gringoman]

Gentlemen Who Address American "Racism":

Of course, you are no doubt aware, by now, of the black intellectual, Shelby Steele, a bete noire (I believe he is more than secure enough to pardon the pun) of the Democrat Party, it's white race hustlers and Black Victimologists who have done so well for themselves by continuing to play the tattered old race card in the USA---a country where non-whites continue to enter massively--legally, illegally or any way possible-- despite the "racial oppression" tunes which the fat Sharptons and Jacksons continue to blow on their dismal, rusty horns. The Victimologists' slick but reprehensible game, of course, depends on politically correct maintenance of White Guilt. Their Libstream supporters enable them to dumb down public discourse. Actually pretty laughable. The most ignorant black is supposed to be able to "see through" any white, but the white is not supposed to be able to "understand" the black, since--don't you know?--the white ain't black. (Having grown up around black people, I have always found these liberal notions stupid beyond belief, and yet so many "educated" whites tolerate such nonsense, act like utter nincompoops and will try to "race" on you when you see right through them. It's really rather insane, yet it's become "American" in my lifetime.) The brilliant Mr. Shelby explains how this politically correct garbage of today's U.S.public discourse depends on "White Guilt."

Steele describes this as a vacuum of moral authority where "whites are stigmatized as being racist simply because they are white."

"The stigma is profound, life-altering, career-ending," he said. "There are few things in life more devastating for a white person than to be labeled a racist." The stigma is so profound that it determines whether you can hold power in American life.

It is supported by two principles, Steele pointed out, deference and license.

{complete article http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/newsletter/03042/steele.html

[Stefan]

Well Slowtrain,
It may surprise you but I agree with myself on this point!!  Historically slavery does not equate with racism. For most of human history people were not enslaved because they were of a different “race” (which is a comparatively newer concept) but rather, because they were vulnerable. The deep racism that grew out of the American experience of slavery in is many regards unique. In America there was a glaring disconnect between Western ideals as reflected in the Declaration on Independence and the institution of slavery manifest in the South. There are few, if any, other places in which the volume and scope of rationalizing literature developed in defense of slavery. There was no need in many parts of the world because slavery was not seen as morally wrong but rather a simple fact of life. This rationalization used as its main thrust the assertion that blacks were “less-than human”. While slaves were commonly looked down on throughout history the racial justification was new and became more intense and more highly developed as abolitionist pressure from Europe and from within the United States increased.

By the 1960’s the country had finally had enough of looking the other way in regards to the Jim Crow culture that remained in the south. The energy and moral authority of the Civil Rights movement grew side by side with the birth of the modern American political Left which found its legs in opposition to the Vietnam War. This new Left was deeply influenced by the Marxist understanding of the world which divided the world into the simple categories of “oppressor and oppressed”. The “oppressors” were the “Establishment” which were corrupt and evil and the “oppressed” were the masses which were to be the soil from which the Revolution would spring. This political cult of victimology was the breeding ground of what is now referred to as the “PC culture”. It proved to be a highly potent and effective political weapon and was adopted by the remaining vestiges of the Civil Rights movement, 1970’s Feminists, Homosexuals, and those that found political capital in constantly rebelling against all United States foreign policies. This victimology catapulted many people into high profile and powerful political and social positions (like Sharpton, Jackson, etc.) and was used to great affect as evidenced by the scourge if “white guilt” that paralyzed their political opponents. If you oppose the left-wing African-American platform then you are loudly and brutally “outted” as a “racist”. This political club is so effective that people like Jesse Jackson could bilk millions out of corporation just by simply threatening charges of institutional racism. Cornell West, and Dyson are learned the game at the knee of Jackson and others and have upped the rhetoric to a fever pitch and the tactics have become the main weapon of the Democratic Party (see the Hurricane Katrina aftermath).

The Latino Left wing of the Democratic Party has mirrored this highly potent political tool. You can see the same weapon being brought to bear on their political opponents (like our gracious hostess) through malicious accusations of racism when they speak out against illegal immigration or if they even dare to suggest that we may want to tighten our borders. Me sees a distinct pattern here……..

[slowtrain]

Kenny Pierce,

I don't see the relevance of your comment to Stefan's comment or mine. The issue in question is neither the difference between race and culture nor between racism and "culturalism". It would appear as if your comment was in response to a completely different issue or trans-located. I am sorry but I can’t find anything to suggest that your comment has any bearing on the issue. Perhaps your comment was out of presumption, as you are overwhelmed with work and may not have had the time to read and think about what was actually said.

But let me bring you back to the issue in question by asking you this, are you disputing my comment that race relations were poisoned long before Al Sharpton, NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Cornel West, Dyson, etc. emerged and that the problem could hardly be attributed to them primarily, regardless of their often self-serving ways? Or are you arguing for political correctness and in support of its attributes that derives from the Darwinian Evolutionary Theory and social Darwinism?

Remember, nowhere in my comment did I say anything about the so-called “black people” or “white people” nor their “cultures”. My comment was on the premise of political correctness alone, and of course those who ride it for motives other than what its true intents may have been or ought to be. In fact, Kenny, your comments trouble me more than Stefan’s comment, because it appears to reveal something else altogether, it appears to reveal a certain preconceived notion.

Kenny wrote:
To put it very simply, a lot of white Americans hold some quite negative opinions of black American culture (for example, that blacks tend to be paranoid and ready to put the most racist possible interpretation on innocent remarks), and these opinions affect the way they react when dealing with black Americans whom they do not yet know well (for example, they weigh every word that they say in order to make sure it won't get them sued).

I hate to be drawn down this road, but here is an excerpt from a book I have frequently quoted from on this blog; it speaks to your comment above and perhaps you might find your comment mute:

Racism in America is a very difficult (and seemingly intractable) problem, particularly because there is a fundamental disconnection between the two main constituencies in the matter. On the one the hand are those (predominantly African Americans) who suffered racism, and on the other hand are those (Caucasians) who did not (and, perhaps, who also inflicted it on the former group). The problem with this situation is that there is a tendency for those who have not experienced racism to minimize it, by claiming that those who suffered it (and perhaps still do) exaggerate its scope and impact. This in turn leads the former group to view the latter group as hypersensitive on the subject. This perception infuriates the latter group, which, therefore, views the former as grossly insensitive to their sufferings. The different feelings provoked by the issue can be summed up by a phrase we have all heard before: “Who feels it, knows it.” The flip side of this phrase (or what it underscores) is that, “who feels not knows it not.”

Perhaps, some white people minimize the issue of racism out of ignorance . . . simply because they don’t know what it feels like (after all, they have never suffered it), while others do so out of malice or mischief. Equally probable is the notion that some African Americans tend to exaggerate racism, as if they see it in every circumstance and in every “white person” (a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts). While others indeed experience racism frequently in their lives, which causes them to see it the way they do — perceptively virtually all around the.

Nevertheless, if America is to overcome this “mother of all problems,” Americans must “get unstuck” from the state of disconnect that exist between the two main constituencies (“black” and “white”) and move forward. To do so, those who suffered (and still suffer) racism must help (work to inspire) those who did not, to understand the lasting damages and ravages that racism causes. They must do so, not with the motive to inspire guilt or to blackmail them, but to help them truly understand the effects of racism. On the other hand, those who have never suffered racism (and perhaps perpetrated it) must be willing to listen, see, and experience racism (and its effects) from the eyes of those who have suffered it. They must do so genuinely, not condescendingly or superficially. This would establish a new consciousness upon which partnership toward reconciliation could be built. The reconciliation must not be superficial. It must be sincere and must come from genuine personal conviction.


Kenny wrote:
I will say this: I do not believe that it is ever immoral or unethical, to recognize the truth -- even if the truth is an unflattering one. And that there are differences in culture that have value, and that are highly correlated with race, is implicitly admitted by every person who claims that white America is, or ever was, predominantly "racist."

You lost me there; what exactly are you talking about? It is clear you are referring to something else other what Stefan or I said. And that is very disappointing and troubling.

[Kenny Pierce]

Slowtrain,

I'm overwhelmed with work and can't do more than hint at a train of thought for you to explore, but:

One of the most common errors in current political discourse is the confusion of race and culture. I often hear people saying that some opinion is "racist" when what they mean is that the opinion is a negative opinion about a culture that is extremely highly correlated with a particular race. To think that somebody is inferior to you because you're black and he's white is probably racism. But let's say that somebody thinks that if there is a recognizable white culture, a recognizable Hispanic culture, a recognizable Asian culture, and a recognizable black-American culture; and furthermore they say that there are some severe social pathologies in some of those cultures that are not shared by the other. I have known a lot of people who would say that this view is "racist." I don't really remember meeting anybody who would say that this view is "racist" and who also spoke cogently and rationally to the distinction between what we might call "culturism" and true "racism," much less to how the rational distinctions might impact the ethical and social considerations.

To put it very simply, a lot of white Americans hold some quite negative opinions of black American culture (for example, that blacks tend to be paranoid and ready to put the most racist possible interpretation on innocent remarks), and these opinions affect the way they react when dealing with black Americans whom they do not yet know well (for example, they weigh every word that they say in order to make sure it won't get them sued). And Jesse Jackson would call this "racism." But let's say the black guy those same white people just met, opens his mouth, and out comes a Jamaican or Nigerian accent. Most white Americans will immediately relax -- because their discomfort is not with black Americans' race, but with their cultural patterns of behavior.

So you might ask yourself whether the distinction between racism and "culturism" would be relevant to your post. (I don't know whether it is or not.)

I will say this: I do not believe that it is ever immoral or unethical, to recognize the truth -- even if the truth is an unflattering one. And that there are differences in culture that have value, and that are highly correlated with race, is implicitly admitted by every person who claims that white America is, or ever was, predominantly "racist."

[slowtrain]

They have modeled themselves on the insipid African-American Left (Al Sharpton, NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Cornel West, Dyson, etc.) who have been poisoning race relations in this country for decades.

Stefan, I am not sure what you mean here. I must say that our views tend to converge on most issues, but I completely disagree with you on this one. And if it is what I think it is, I have to say that your comment is utterly disingenuous. Much as some of the people you mentioned sometimes act in self-serving and hypocritical manner, they are hardly responsible for the poisoning of race relations in this country. You must not be serious with that comment otherwise you need a refresher course in American history. Race relations was poisoned the moment African Americans set foot in this country, have been for a very long time and long before these characters emerged. We have only just begun to address it sincerely and the more we do so the more irrelevant these characters will become.

As for political correctness, it is obvious that it has been hijacked and the original and true ideal has been replaced with a phony; it is now basically a vehicle for cultural and behavioral relativism. It is ironic that the people who claim to seek the eradication of racial and cultural prejudice or intolerance through political correctness are the same people that promote the foundational philosophy and consciousness of the evolutionary theory from which all such prejudice derive.

There is a deep and certain sense of contradiction at the heart of their claim, which points to the issue of motives. What really is the motive for political correctness these days? For political correctness to have or regain legitimacy and relevance, it must first and foremost seek to eradicate the fundamental racist evolutionary philosophy that has generated all the apparent maladies that necessitated political correctness in the first place.

It is counterintuitive and contrary to reason to bring up people with the mindset that they are racially (biologically and socially) superior to others yet wonder why they act out of such mindset. It is equally hypocritical and ludicrous to expect such people to regard as equals those to whom they were supposed to be superior. Perhaps this explains why the language of the supposed effort for the elusive racial reconciliation through PC is not one of equality, but one of tolerance.

Since tolerance is sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own, in this case racism as established by Darwinism; or the act of allowing something or the allowable deviation from a standard, in this case the notion of superior and inferior races. Therefore, at best political correctness is simply an effort to unlearn racism, which is not the same as ending racism, it simply glosses over the problem.

As long as the ideology that established and perpetuates racism exists, and the mechanisms by which racist tendencies are acquired remain in place, there will always be an endless cycle of producing people with racist dispositions followed by superficial attempts such as political correctness and other ineffective attempts to cure them of the malady of racism. It is like making people insane and at the same time attempting to cure them of insanity or expecting them to be sane. You see my friend, some of these characters may be charlatans, but they are hardly the ones poisoning race relations in this country.

[Alexandra]

Everybody,

What an incredible array of touching comments. Thank you all so much, you have really touched me deeply. I received tons of emails of good wishes, sprayed with amazing compliments, and one which stood out in it's clarity on the subject at hand, which I 'd like to share:

Now about the HR4437. The reason that we do not want the felony language in the immigration bill is that if a person is charged with a felony then there are grand juries, a lot of legal procedures with depositions, trail by jury, witnesses, and so on. If the illegal person is charged with misdemeanor, then the only legal procedure required is to make a plea and get a hearing before a judge. No discovery, no depositions, no trial by jury, and so on. It is much easier to deport illegal immigrants if the law is made easier to administer which I think is the goal.

Unfortunately, many see the punitive nature of a felony as being desirable, but I don’t think that they understand the ramifications of administering immigration law via the felony route. The democrats understand this and they know that if the felony language is retained, the likelihood of any deportations is nil.

[Filou]

Happy birthday, Alexandra. You are doing a fantastic job and we love you.

[a guy in pajamas]

Happy Birthday!

[Darrell]

I knew I couldn't be one of the first, so let me be one of the last to wish you a Happy Birthday and all good things in the coming year! Thanks, professor, for allowing me to take your course! You are a light shining on the darkness.

Don't let the news get you down. The other side is just being true to their character. Their plan, after losing the White House to Bush once again, was to wear down the American people with their MSM allies. It isn't working. The one group that consisently receives LOWER approval ratings than Bush is the Legislative Branch, including Democrats. Let's not be rushed into any action over illegal aliens. Are they going anywhere? Let's stop more from entering for now. And make sure that those who are here do not step into the polling place in accordance with our laws. Then let's craft a well-thought out law to address the issue, not some knee-jerk reaction to the May Day madness. We know the Left was behind the marches. We saw the signs on the Web. What are the odds that with all the MSM coverage, they wouldn't capture one of those Socialist signs on camera? Are you proud of yourself, MSM? You've lost the right to call yourselves journalists. Don't let the liars frame the argument. This isn't about immigration, we have ample legal immigration. This is about ILLEGAL immigration. And let's repeal the 1963 Ted Kennedy immigration bill. If we didn't know then, we surely know now-whatever Ted Kennedy is behind is bad for America.

By the way, no one intends to use the felony charges to jail the illegals. The upgrade is intended to force local police to enforce the law. They aren't addressing the matter because of its misdemeanor status. And whose Social Security number do you think these 12 million people are using? They are using false documents to get a job, but real SS numbers. Yours? Maybe. Phony numbers get discovered immediately. 12 million people are in for a surprise in the coming years.

[AskMom]

Pelosi exists to make women like Alexandra look even smarter, more gorgeous and charming than they already are. And that is the only excuse for the Pelosis of the world.

Happy, happy birthday, wonderful lady. You bring joy and do credit to your Creator.

[Stefan]

Sto Lat Alexandra, your hard work is deeply appreciated!!
On the immigration issue I will probably be seen as an outsider to the majority view at ATB. I support the attempt to legalize many of the immigrants who are here illegally for the reason of doing an honest day’s work and in hopes of supporting their families. I do not like the fact that they are here illegally, I think the border should be “locked down” from this point forward (even if that means a wall), and I think that those illegals that come forward should be required to pay all back taxes (where this applies), pay a healthy fine, show proof of employment (with an employer who agrees to “sponsor” them), and be required to learn English in order to re-apply after five years. If they meet those requirements and have no criminal record after a five year period they should be allowed to apply for citizenship (at the back of the line so as not to punish those that did things right). It is a childish fantasy to pretend like we can send back twelve million people so we might as well just get over that silliness right now. I fully understand that we should not reward law breaking so the punitive fine is required. Many think that it should be a felony but what good does that do? Over-packing our prisons and immobilizing our criminal justice system with millions of mostly harmless people is foolhardy. There has been decades and decades of culpability on the US side of the border from companies that have continued to hire, often luring, illegal workers, law enforcement and government that has, for years and years, looked the other way, corruption on both sides of the border which has allowed coyotes move people en masse over the border for years, and our economy which has gladly accepted their spending and labor. We have allowed this problem become a disaster because we have benefited from it and therefore remained barely active until recently. A middle ground must be found, there is no other possible, workable solution.

On the other hand, I am angered by the tone of the militant activism of recent months. The protests and demands are uncalled for and really piss me off. I was talking to some of my Mexican co-workers the other day and suddenly had a sinking feeling. The Mexican-American leadership that is already in place (congress people, government leaders, media personalities, newspapers, etc.) is deeply left-wing. They are firmly in the school of victimology that oozes from the PC culture, academia, and the Democratic Party. They have modeled themselves on the insipid African-American Left (Al Sharpton, NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Cornel West, Dyson, etc.) who have been poisoning race relations in this country for decades. My friend was telling me about how Bush had Bin Laden at his ranch before 9-11!! Yikes!!! The Moonbats have been speaking in Spanish this whole time!! Perhaps it should have occurred to me earlier but it didn’t. Whatever you think about how to solve this illegal alien problem; Conservatives damn well better start speaking Spanish. We can not allow people, who are new to the particular political and ideological debates in this country, be subjected to only one side of the argument. The case must be made to everyone in this country, even those just here to work. Republicans had better engage now because look how long it took for African-Americans to trickle over from the Democratic side. This country cannot withstand a new resurgence of Democratic strength.

Anyways, sorry to ramble on so....I’m sure many will disagree with my position but, that is just how it goes eh? ;-) Have a great day Alexandra!!!!

[Jeff Durkin]

First off, happy birthday, Alexandra. Here's hoping for many more (happy ones) to come.

Second, having had the "pleasure" of meeting the Democratic Leader on occasion (in my job capacity and purely in passing) the image of her actually being spineless and flopping about like a flatworm is both disturbing and, oddly, appropriate.

The loyal opposition has, unfortunately, been outdone in their pandering by the GOP. Is it only the citizenry - and certain leaders like Congressman Tancredo - who still care about keeping American culture afloat in these turbulent times? It certainly seems like it.

American culture is indispensable if we wish to see a better future for mankind. What are the alternatives? Islamic theocracy? China's quasi-free market totalitarian state? The socialist thuggery of Chavez? The apparently perpetual anarchy of Africa? Even our fellow Westerners in Europe seem to be losing their "faith" in themselves and the culture that gave birth to America.

Sigh.

[Liquid]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY ALEXANDRA!!!!

WE LOVE YA!

[slowtrain]

Happy birthday Alexandra, I wish you many more years and may the years to come bring you peace, joy, good health and wealth. May your feet remain firmly planted in the fertile and enduring ground of truth and may you always speak the truth in fairness, may HE keep you near HIM, where you will always be renewed.

Now, back to the issue, if I can remember what it was. Ah yes, spineless somebody, that’s it: The Spineless Nancy Pelosi. I must warn you however, this is going to be a fairly long comment and I apologize. But, your readers are probably used to long comments coming from me that I am sure they already have a treatment for them; skip them or grind their teeth wishing they could pull me through the tube and connect a strong right hand swing to my jaw. On second thought, I will cut it in half. The whole thing will bring too much guilty than I can bear on this very special day and if you want the whole thing you know where to find it.

George Washington, in his farewell address in 1797, urged his fellow Americans to foreswear excessive party spirit and geographic distinctions. True, the tendency for excessive party allegiance has been part of American politics since the days of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, but it is increasingly acquiring a lethal dynamics and becoming a trend that threatens the legitimacy of America’s democracy and to undermine the security and stability of the country.

The double edged patronizing and victimizing politics of pandering, rife with inflammatory rhetoric for or against groups, takes advantage of people on the basis of their sentiments. This type of politics, inspired by the political numbers game that threatens to pervert America’s democracy, motivates people for the wrong reasons and drives them to develop strong in group loyalties, which undermines democracy and the unity of the nation. For some reason, the Republican Party has managed to appear recklessness in playing its hand on the all important issue of immigration and has suffered at the polls every time it deed, much to the delight of Democrats who exploit the resulting situation. Americans left, right and center don’t like to see themselves as mean spirited; hence Republicans must not only be fair, but more importantly, must not be perceived by the public as mean spirited in pursuing their agenda, however right it may be.

Alexandra wrote:
Another little noted fact is that House Democrats are responsible for keeping “felony illegal” provisions in the House Immigration Bill, HR 4437. In a slick maneuver December 16, House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, was one of 191 Democrats who joined only 65 Republicans providing the majority voting to block an amendment to the HR 4437 immigration bill which would have removed provisions making a federal felony of illegal entry or presence in the U.S. HR 4437 sponsor James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, himself had offered an amendment removing it.

Well, the Republicans should have been deft, should have adopted the incremental approach and should never have included the HR 4437 in the immigration reform bill in the first place, at least not at this time, because it appears mean spirited — the way democrats like to paint them and the same weapon the democrats have repeatedly and successfully used against them. There are better ways, that would not have been perceived as draconian, to achieve the intended results of the HR 4437. How is it that they could not learn from the 1994 California Proposition 187 and the experience of the 104th Congress?

One would expect that the Republicans would have learned from the last “fight” on the issue — the 1994 California Proposition 187 and the Republican controlled 104th Congress. With a manifesto titled “Contract with America”, the Republican controlled 104th Congress failed to play its hand deftly and was blamed for shutting down the government, by sending to then President Bill Clinton a budget proposal they knew was a potion he would not drink. As was expected, Clinton vetoed the billed just as he had said he would. Many observers believe that the Republicans’ judgment and objectivity were impaired by their “blinding hatred” for Bill Clinton. Some say that their hatred had turned into an obsession, and in their efforts to undermine a popular Democrat and president, they shot themselves in the foot — overreached and caused the country great harm.

Ironically, the Texas Democrats essentially shutdown the Texas government on May 14, 2003, when Texas Congressional Democrats, blaming the U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, whom they are now intent on bringing down, for the drive to redraw the state’s congressional districts, fled to Oklahoma to stymie a redistricting bill by preventing debate and preliminary votes on the bill before the deadline, in the hope to prevent the Republicans from gaining additional seats, which would give the Republicans control of the House.

The standoff that ensued from the 1994 immigration bill raised the trend of excessive party loyalty and antagonism to an unprecedented level and created a deep division between the two major political parties, and indeed between citizens, much of which still remains even today. Some say it caused uproar among the public and created a backlash that haunted the leadership of the 104th Congress and arguably cost the Republican Party the midterm election in 1996. Consequently, some republicans blamed their leader, Newt Gingrich, the architect of the “Contract with America”, who subsequently, perhaps consequently resigned from his leadership post and later left the House altogether. Well, guess what, it is that season again and it is looking like it would be déjà vu all over again.

[igout]

Lucky lady! You still observe birthdays. I stopped the odometer on mine long time ago.

[superhawk]

Happy birthday!

Wish I could see the right side of 30 again!

Rick Moran

[gringoman]

Alexandra,

If The Pelosi is spineless (and far be it from me to dispute that), one wonders what is the proper adjective for El Presidente Boosh in "Our first Mexican President," as quoted by the following extract from his speech presented at gringoman.

".... So listen up, folks: we can't deport 11, 15, 20 million, including 1 million of their criminals. Round 'em up? Impossible........... You say cut off the welfare their own won't give them? Stop our liberal entitlements, the food stamps, the driver licenses, the free tuition their own won't give them, the counterfeit social security cards? Stop them from bankrupting our hospitals? You mean let them deport themselves back to their venal godawful Government?.......... But folks, where's the compassion? My brother Jeb's wife Columba (a fine Mexi lady) says this is hurtful. Not good for our gringo image. You want these illegals and their professional agitators calling you racists and taking over our streets and daring us to fire on 'em for CNN and Al-Jazeera? (By the way, Jeb's wife doubts that many Al Quaeda terrorists or nuke mules are studying Spanish. I like her optimism, heh-heh).......... Folks, you know how I feel about vigilantes and Minutemen. We don't want outlaws calling this a national emergency........"

Okay, now for the best part of this comment: Happy birthday, Alexandra, and many more to come!

[RJBJ]

Hearing vowed on Bush's powers
Republican Senator questions bypassing of laws

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | May 3, 2006

WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, accusing the White House of a ''very blatant encroachment" on congressional authority, said yesterday he will hold an oversight hearing into President Bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years.

''There is some need for some oversight by Congress to assert its authority here," Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview. ''What's the point of having a statute if . . . the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?"

Specter said he plans to hold the hearing in June. He said he intends to call administration officials to explain and defend the president's claims of authority, as well to invite constitutional scholars to testify on whether Bush has overstepped the boundaries of his power.

[...]

[Michael Galien]

Crusader;

Michael, I found much of what is in Wisdom is covered in the Proverbs.

That is entirely true of course; I was thinking to myself that I can understand why they left it out because, like you say, a lot of it exists in Proverbs. Although I must say that what I like about the book Wisdom, among other things, is the fact that it really focuses on the Holy Spirit. Besides that I, but that is of course quite personal, like the simple fact that it is completely about Gods Wisdom.

However the Book of Sirach is a hilarious read! Maybe there is an element of truth in all humour...

Thanks, I will be sure to read Sirach tomorrow!

Kenny, and Michael

Thanks for introducing and addressing this topic.

Haha, no problem of course. It's, in my opinion, always interesting to talk about topics like these.
The downside is that we kinda drifted off topic, but I hope Alexandra will forgive me for causing that ;)

Kenny:
Almost right. Try dividing Christianity into four main classes

You are, again (pisses me off ;) just kiddin' of course), completely right. Being Dutch, I must admit I don't think of Anglican and Eastern Orthodox very quickly when talking about different 'paths' of Christianity. Sorry for that.

And if you want to tease me then you should go after Anglicans/Episcopalians, as I am only an honorary Catholic.

ahh.. well.. it would be a little bit lame (laim?) to repeat the joke of course.

Rorschach;
Kenny: I must have an Episcopalian Bible among my collection, then. It includes all of the Apocrypha, but it sticks them in their own section at the end of the book.

Really? With that new Bible translation, it is at the end of the Old Testament, before the New Testament.

Thus, question; what is the 'normal' place to put the Apocrypha?

Ohyeah, Kenny:
So... maybe, after all, we Protestants could learn something from the Anglicans.
LOL - I know, it's lame (laim?), what can I say? I've got real Dutch humor... :D

[Jeremayakovka]

Happy birthday! I hope you get everything you wish for this year. (Duck and cover, Ahmadinejad!)

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Kenny, and Michael

Thanks for introducing and addressing this topic. I had also never really considered the Apocrypha much, even though I grew up South African Anglican, so trying to answer Michael was illuminating. Thankyou Kenny for your authoratative reply.

Michael, I found much of what is in Wisdom is covered in the Proverbs. However the Book of Sirach is a hilarious read! Maybe there is an element of truth in all humour...

[Rorschach]

Kenny: I must have an Episcopalian Bible among my collection, then. It includes all of the Apocrypha, but it sticks them in their own section at the end of the book.

[Kenny Pierce]

Michael,

Almost right. Try dividing Christianity into four main classes:

1. Eastern Orthodox: do use them.
2. Roman Catholics: do use them.
3. Anglicans: use them but don't consider them authoritative.
4. Reformation Protestants: don't use them.
5. Devout Jews (special bonus honorary category): don't use them.

And if you want to tease me then you should go after Anglicans/Episcopalians, as I am only an honorary Catholic.

[Michael Galien]

Thank all of you for answering my question. All answers were helpful, so thanks very much.

marcH, Kenny and crusaderNoRegrets: yes you are right; sorry about that. Indeed; torah is the law, not the other books.

So, if I understand this right; the Catholics do use them, the Protestants don't. The Catholics see them as 'useful' - useful, but not an authority.

I must say I greatly appreciate the book Wisdom. So... maybe, after all, we Protestants could learn something from the Catholics.
(just playing with ya kenny ;))

[Van der Leun]

I am sending you a fresh hot trackback for your birthday and these ancient sentiments:

Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah
Some call me the gangster of love
Some people call me maurice
Cause I speak of the pompitous of love.....

[Kenny Pierce]

Michael,

How much detail do you want? [grinning]

I'll do my best. Guest, PLEASE correct everything I get wrong, which will no doubt be quite a bit.

First of all, Wisdom is definitely not included in the Torah, because the Torah is properly speaking only the five books of Moses. The proper Jewish term for what Christians call the Old Testament is I believe the Tanach, which is an anagram (T-N-CH) for three Hebrew words that twenty years ago I knew...it's pretty much what Jesus is saying when he refers to "the Law and the Prophets." (The T stands for "Torah," i.e., the Law...it's something like "Law-Wisdom-Prophets" but you'll have to get the full skinny from the Guest.)

The books that were originally candidates for inclusion in the Tanach/OT were written in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Then, fairly early in the diaspora, a group of Jewish scholars living in Alexandria produced a Greek translation of those books that they considered to be in the Tanach and weren't composed in Greek to begin with. This translation varies somewhat widely in quality (though some of what used to be considered bad translation is now thought of as textual variation). But it became used by Jews and especially by converts to Judaism -- including the strain of Judaism that thought Jesus was the Messiah -- throughout the Roman world. And in particular, the Septuagint was the version of the Tanach that Paul took for granted was being read by his converts. When Paul said, "All Scripture is inspired by God," you would naturally expect him to have included in that all of the books included in the Septuagint, simply because that's unquestionably what his audience would have understood him to mean.

The Hebrew canon was not, however, fully established during the first century, and during the same period in which the Christians were trying to nail down their canon, the rabbis were trying to nail down theirs, as captured ultimately in the Masoretic Text. In the end the rabbis concluded that the books for which we no longer have Hebrew or Aramaic texts (I don't know whether such texts existed then but they don't now) would be excluded from the official Tanach. Meanwhile the Church decided to include the entire Septuagint; this became the Old Testament of most of the Christian world up until the Reformation, and it is still the Old Testament of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.

St. Jerome, however, the translator of the Vulgate (which became the Bible of the Roman Church for a millenium), was on very friendly terms with the rabbis and admired them very much, and although he went ahead and translated the books they excluded he made it clear that he didn't think those books really belonged. And, for reasons I've never bothered to explore, the Reformers decided to go with St. Jerome and the rabbis rather than with the Pope and the Council. Accordingly the controversial books were labelled "apocryphal" and were excluded. However, "apocryphal" is a generic term for books that don't have the bona fides to be accepted as reliable. Thus it includes not only near-misses that almost made it in like the Didache, but also farcical stuff like the Gospels of "Thomas" and "Judas." Since obviously the newly apocryphal books were in a rather different class, it has become customary to refer to them collectively as the Apocrypha-with-a-capital-A.

My own Anglican Church, with its customary yen for compromise, and with its customary respect for the Ecumenical Councils, strikes an odd middle ground. We include the Apocrypha in our Bibles, and we refer to them as "useful." But we don't generally regard them as authoritative. You can see the difference in attitude, amusingly, in the liturgy:

If I am doing the Old Testament reading during Sunday morning Eucharist, and the reading for the week is taken from one of the fully-approved books, I let the congregation know that I've finished by saying, "The Word of the Lord," to which they respond, "Thanks be to God." But if the OT reading is from, say, Wisdom, I mark the end of the reading by saying, "Here ends the reading," and the congregation doesn't reply.

More detail than you wanted, probably, and the specifically Jewish parts are probably not perfectly accurate, but for what it's worth, there you go.

[neo-neocon]

Have a wonderful, wonderful birthday, Alexandra!

And if there's an better painting to illustrate "spinelss," I've yet to see it.

[MarcH]

Alexandra,

Happy Birthday! May you live to be 120 (it’s a Jewish saying, but you shouldn’t mind that as you have been outed as a “blind love(er) for Israel” and a “bellicose Christian” ;-]). We are grateful for you and your work.

Michael,

I’m sure that I can’t answer with the expertise of Guest or Ken, but you may find this helpful.

1. Although the term Torah can have several meanings for Jews (including all traditional Jewish learning and study) the most precise definition is probably, the first five books of Moses. In Jewish synagogues these are maintained in a traditional scroll. They are removed and read twice a week, on the Sabbath and on holidays. The Torah readings are divided into 54 portions and the Torah reading cycle is completed once a year.
2. The Jewish Bible is sometimes referred to as Tanakh and includes the above definition of the Torah, as well as Nevim (Prophets) and Ketuvim (writings). The word Tanakh is an acronym of Torah, Nevim and Ketuvim. Ketuvim includes Ester, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
3. The Torah is traditionally believed to have been given by God to Moses at Sinai or throughout the 40 years of the desert. I don’t know when or how the content of Nevim or Ketuvim were fixed, but I believe this dates to the period of the Second Temple.
4. One should note that there is also a separate Oral Torah, believed by traditional Jews to have been given to Moses by God at Sinai. The Oral Torah is the basis for understanding the Torah (for example, how do we know how to make and use the phylacteries referred to in the Torah?). The Oral Torah was written down several hundred years after the destruction of the Second Temple.

I hope the above is of some use to you until you find a more expert guide.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

Alexandra

Happy Birthday, and God Bless.

Michael,

What you have there is a Christian Bible with the Apochrypha, and I believe that the Roman Catholic Church uses this edition of the bible. (Isn't that ironic - a Protestant country like the Netherlands, over which England fought Spain and France so often, printing a Catholic bible! Ain't the world grand?)

The Apochrypha, I think, was dumped during the Reformation, if I recall correctly. Hence most bibles today do not contain it, having been printed by Protestant bible societites (just speculating here), but the Catholic ones still do. At least that's my best, inadequate attempt to answer your question.

I have only ever seen two bibles with Apochrypha in my life. Guess I need to diversify!

[karen]

Happy Birthday, Alexandra!! May you continue to shine like the stars in the Heavens. Your blog is ~visually compelling~. Along with beautiful, thought-provoking and honest. If I miss a day of you- I feel I don't really know what happened in the world.

Be kind to yourself today!!

As to the picture and Nancy Pelosi- spot on!! Most especially the very big head.

[Fausta]

Happy birthday!

[Michael Galien]

Happy birthday! May there be many more.

Sorry to go off topic but I have a question for you, Kenny Pierce or Guest at the Feast (or of course anyone else that knows quite a lot about Jewism / Christianity.

Okay, here's my question:
My mother has the new Dutch translation of the Bible. In that translation they also included the deuterocanonical books. Which are:
- Tobit
- Judith
- Ester
- 1 Makkabeeen (maccabees?)
- 2 makkabeeen
- Wisdom
- Wisdom of Sirach
- Baruch
- Letter of Jeremiah
- Appendix (?) or 'adds' to Daniel
- The Prayer of Menasse

Okay; here is my question: I am reading the book called Wisdom now and in the introduction of that book (this Bible has an introduction to every book) it says that the book of Wisdom is part of the Jewish wisdomliterature, like Sirach and Ecclesiastes. It also says its genre is based on the tradition set forth in Job and Proverbs.

Anyhow; I was wondering; is this book concidered part of the Tora? What I mean to say is, is this book part of the Jewish faith?
If so, I am wondering, why isn't the book (and the other deuterocanonical books) not included normally in the Bible / Old Testament?

This book Wisdom is the first deuterocanonical book I am reading, but it seems to me that it is a very interesting book. So... Why isn't it 'normally' in the Bible?